ENnies To Ban Generative AI From 2025

The ENnie Awards has announced that from 2025, products including content made by generative AI will not be eligible for the awards.

Established in 2001, the ENnies are the premier tabletop roleplaying game awards ceremony, and are held every year in a ceremony at Gen Con. They were created right here on EN World, and remained affiliated with EN World until 2018.

The decision on generative AI follows a wave of public reaction criticising the policy announced in 2023 that while products containing generative AI were eligible, the generative AI content itself was not--so an artist whose art was on the cover of a book could still win an award for their work even if there was AI art inside the book (or vice versa). The new policy makes the entire product ineligible if it contains any generative AI content.

Generative AI as a whole has received widespread criticism in the tabletop industry over the last couple of years, with many companies--including D&D's owner Wizards of the Coast--publicly announcing their opposition to its use on ethical grounds.

The new policy takes effect from 2025.

The ENNIE Awards have long been dedicated to serving the fans, publishers, and broader community of the tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) industry. The ENNIES are a volunteer-driven organization who generously dedicate their time and talents to celebrate and reward excellence within the TTRPG industry. Reflecting changes in the industry and technological advancements, the ENNIE Awards continuously review their policies to ensure alignment with community values.

In 2023, the ENNIE Awards introduced their initial policy on generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). The policy recognized the growing presence of these technologies in modern society and their nuanced applications, from generating visual and written content to supporting background tasks such as PDF creation and word processing. The intent was to encourage honesty and transparency from creators while maintaining a commitment to human-driven creativity. Under this policy, creators self-reported AI involvement, and submissions with AI contributions were deemed ineligible for certain categories. For example, products featuring AI-generated art were excluded from art categories but remained eligible for writing categories if the text was entirely human-generated, and vice versa. The organizers faced challenges in crafting a policy that balanced inclusivity with the need to uphold the values of creativity and originality. Recognizing that smaller publishers and self-published creators often lack the resources of larger companies, the ENNIE Awards sought to avoid policies that might disproportionately impact those with limited budgets.

However, feedback from the TTRPG community has made it clear that this policy does not go far enough. Generative AI remains a divisive issue, with many in the community viewing it as a threat to the creativity and originality that define the TTRPG industry. The prevailing sentiment is that AI-generated content, in any form, detracts from a product rather than enhancing it.

In response to this feedback, the ENNIE Awards are amending their policy regarding generative AI. Beginning with the 2025-2026 submission cycle, the ENNIE Awards will no longer accept any products containing generative AI or created with the assistance of Large Language Models or similar technologies for visual, written, or edited content. Creators wishing to submit products must ensure that no AI-generated elements are included in their works. While it is not feasible to retroactively alter the rules for the 2024-2025 season, this revised policy reflects the ENNIE Awards commitment to celebrating the human creativity at the heart of the TTRPG community. The ENNIES remain a small, volunteer-run organization that values the ability to adapt quickly, when necessary, despite the challenges inherent in their mission.

The ENNIE Awards thank the TTRPG community for their feedback, passion, and understanding. As an organization dedicated to celebrating the creators, publishers, and fans who shape this vibrant industry, the ENNIES hope that this policy change aligns with the values of the community and fosters continued growth and innovation.

 

[Art Waring]

I am really late to the debate, but as a traditional artist I do appreciate this policy.

 

[LordEntrails]

Is there a verification process in place?

Just wondering how any potential accusations of AI use would be handled.

By the mob of course. How else do we judge things in this community? Certainly not be reason and careful consideration!

I’m not sure there can be. You can prove something isn’t AI, but you can’t prove that it is. And a lot of artists get falsely accused of using AI these days from people who ‘think’ they can tell the difference.

Exactly. There is no way to reliable know if an image or text was AI generated. So instead all this rule does is CYA for the ENnies and place the rulings into the mob of social media. Which is more often than not, wrong.

There are programs that analyze the digital image looking for specific types of artifacts found in digital art and rating how likely they think it its. Now, some of these artifacts I believe can be introduced just in digitizing physical media, and things like digital brushes and other tools that are common among digital artists I know can create these, and therefore show false positives.

Yep, and though these programs are improving, they are improving less rapidly than the generative algorithms are. Relying upon them is plain stupidity as they have all been proven wrong countless times.

To ensure companies don't use any AI, the only practical way to enforce that is to disqualify a product entirely for its use anywhere within its pages.

Yea, not going to happen. Because you can't reliably prove AI use.

All this does is an excuse to say "Ee support traditional human artists! Take your pitchforks elsewhere!"

It seems to me that the ones that lump all AI together don't actually understand it, but are willing to sling their opinions about it anyway.

Exactly. For many it is simple an emotional issue.

Like the mass production of the automobile was going to cause mean to not take care of their families or the extinction of horses. Like the photocopier was going to put publishers out of business. Or the camera, or electricity and the lightbulb, or a hundred other things.

People respond emotionally when they feel threatened. Rather than learn and embrace the new technology they huddle, and shout, and call for doom and gloom.

This decision is bad. Its unenforceable and simply proliferates fear and stagnation.

 

[Reynard]

This decision is bad. Its unenforceable and simply proliferates fear and stagnation.

The decision not to allow AI generated slop to win awards is fine. I just think people should consider how the tools can be used OUTSIDE generating slop.

 

[LordEntrails]

These things aren't AI. The term is used too often to describe things which are just basic computer functions. Spellchecks have been around for decades--they weren't AI then, and they aren't now.

Generative AI is not artificial intelligence. It is a marketing terms to describe basic computer algorithms that use simple math to predict outcomes from large data sets. The algorithms and theories have been around for decades. Its only with storage and processing power costs dropping so significantly that practical implementations have become commercially viable.

Just like spell check.

 

[LordEntrails]

The decision not to allow AI generated slop to win awards is fine. I just think people should consider how the tools can be used OUTSIDE generating slop.

Of course slop shouldn't win awards, whoever makes it. The point of mine you are responding to is simple, and one that it seems you even agreed with, their is no reliable way to make the determination if a beautiful, artistic and inspiring image was human made or had parts created using AI. (Not the current AI image models that are much more capable than the ones form 6 months ago.)

Putting in place a rule that can not be reliable enforced is only to appease the mob and to focus their ire on someone/something else.

 

[LordEntrails]

Gen AI doesn't actually create anything new, it effectively copies bits and pieces of its source material.

Neither do the vast majority of authors. Were the Twighlight books new? Or Harry Potter? Maybe they invented a couple of new words that have made it into common language. But ideas? Concepts, 99.9...% of the words they used? All been done before.

The vast majority of the books we read are simply an author effectively taking bits and pieces from other works they are familiar with and putting them together in a way that they author hopes will be widely accepted.

Sure, Gen AI is not exactly the same, but don't give humans more credit for originality than we actually deserve.

 

[Lanefan]

This is the very concern I have with it. I have no talent for art, I wish I did. I can play around with AI and make something that is most people would say is objectively better than what I can draw with my own hands. The thing is though after playing around with AI you see the sameness of it. It produces a lot of mediocrity.

Which, when mediocrity is all you need for illustrating your home game or someone's character, is all you need. And that's all I want it for - at least for the time being.

That said, the AI art I've seen runs the full gamut from excellent-for-purpose to completely-awful-for-anything.

 

[Blue]

I am really late to the debate, but as a traditional artist I do appreciate this policy.

Are you really appreciative of this new policy? The old policy was to disqualify all generative AI from winning, but other human-crafted aspects of the work would still be eligible.

Before, as a traditional artist, even if a publisher used generative AI elsewhere in a product, it only disqualified that part, so your art could still win the Best Art, Cover category, or Best Art, Interior.

What you are appreciating is that now in generative AI is used anywhere, say in creating some lore, all of the art work will also be disqualified. Are you sure you find that a positive?

 

[Blue]

A lot can happen in 20 years. There’s no need for an industry award to be on the bleeding edge of technology.

Meaningless argument: the old rules already disqualified anything from Generative AI from winning an award.

 

[TiQuinn]

Meaningless argument: the old rules already disqualified anything from Generative AI from winning an award.

And they continue to do so.